Видео

Hi @JH_Phillips. Two books that provide a really good starting point are Carl E. Olson, Will Catholics Be Left Behind? (Ignatius Press, 2003). and David B. Currie, Rapture: The End-Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind.

Thank you so much, @JH_Phillips!!!

Thank you, @Janae!

Thank you, @Janae. I hope that you found it informative and that it cleared up some of the confusion about Critical Race Theory.

Thank you, @Janae A. Petrusha. We're pleased that you found the video to be informative.

I get the sense from your comment, @T McGe, that you think the video defends the rapture and the notion that Christ comes before the final judgment to whisk believers away. The video, though, is a critique of the rapture, not a defense. The rapture strongly contradicts Catholic (as well as all pre-Reformation and even much Reformation) eschatology.

@@sjvkirklandadultfaithforma8221 no problem, I am only giving scripture in hopes people will open the book and read. We all need to read, study and pray more than ever before. Amen and Peace

@T McGe. I agree -- we should all both read and study Sacred Scripture. Thanks for stressing that. Blessings.

Since justification by faith alone is directly related to this video, @Christian Virtue & Grace, would you like to expand your remarks? Incidentally, I began watching your video on dispensationalism at ruclips.net/channel/UC5Xs-BPMp1ZbnOrLTQrMd9g and really like it.

@@sjvkirklandadultfaithforma8221 Sure. I will expand upon the video. The dispensationalism video was written by Deusimerator and I narrated it.. Just got home, so I will do it in a few minutes in next comment.

@@sjvkirklandadultfaithforma8221 Everyone is familiar wit the Judaizer heresy which culminates with the first Council of Jerusalem; which we read in Acts 15. What made the requirement of Circumcision a heresy was the fact that it wasn't compatible with the Gospel of Grace. Paul tells those gentile converts that if they seek circumcision, they will be "severed from Christ," see Galatians 5:4. *With that heresy put to rest, another heresy was in its infancy.* There was now some Jewish coverts who were claiming that they were justified by faith only. James addresses these Jewish converts and this belief that they were justified just by Faith Alone/Faith By-Itself/Faith Only. i found this similar to when John the Baptist had told the Pharisees, in Matthew 3:7-10, that they think they are safe because "Abraham is there father." This was the mentality of these Jewish Converts. We get out first hint in James 1:22-24 James 1:22-24 RSV 👉[22] But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.👈🏼 [23] For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; [24] for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. There are Hearers and there are DOERS of the Word (Gospel). All of chapter 2 is a contrast between being a DOER or a HEARER. Its important to look at James 2:8-13 specifically to see that 2 important questions are being asked in James 2:14. I sum up both questions into this: CAN FAITH ALONE SAVE YOU? This questions (James 2:14) has an answer in James 2:24. *Everything between 2:15-23 is the SUPPORTING Evidence for the answer given in James 2:24. James 2:24: You see that a man is JUSTIFIED by works and NOT by FAITH ALONE. Once this Epistle hit the newstands, the infant heresy was squashed or was put to death. I have so much more I thiis heresy. Here is just a small sample: James 2:17 KJV Even so FAITH, if it hath not works, is DEAD, BEING ALONE. James 2:17 RSV So FAITH BY-ITSELF, if it has no works, is DEAD. Look at the keywords of James 2:17 KJV: FAITH, DEAD, being ALONE. RSV: FAITH BY-ITSELF is DEAD. Notice anything in the Keywords. FAITH ALONE = DEAD FAITH, just like the demons and the Heterodox possess, see James 2:19. The THIRD Heresy has bits and pieces found in the Epiistles and in Acts. This was the beginning of Gnosticism and Dualism. Matter was evil and spirit was Good. This is why John in 1:1 and elsewhere, tells us that they had touched Jesus, ate with Him, talked with Him so that it would dispell this heresy that there was only the Spirit Jesus in front of them. Here is an interesting fact that it touched upon in your video around the 12 or 13 minute mark: The word Catholic, which means universal. Well by the time of the Last Apostle (John), the heresy of Gnosticism/Dualism was now in full bloom. How did one know if they were in an Apostolic Church, which was teaching and preaching the Apostolic Faith? Well, they looked for the word CATHOLIC in front of the word CHURCH. All they other churches were Gnostic. That is how and why the Church of the Apostles started using the word Catholic. And even today, one looks for the Catholic Church to receive the sacraments and not denomiantions or cults which teach the heresies created at and after the Reformation. I have plenty of videos on this subject. Blessings Ryan Zell

Thank you so much for your detailed response, Ryan, and blessings to you as well.

@@sjvkirklandadultfaithforma8221 Thank you so much, brother. Where are you at. I'm in WPB Florida and also in the Raleigh area as well. Reitred and I split it up 6/6 months in each place.

I'm not sure what would count as credible evidence for healings that occurred two thousand years ago or earlier, or why you would expect credible evidence. Particularly in the New Testament, 'the healings recorded in the Gospels and Acts occurred at a time when Jesus and the emerging church were obscure. Moreover, many historical events have only a single attestation. So what you're really questioning is whether the Bible is reliable in recounting the healings it records, and presumably especially the healings recorded in Jesus' ministry. I think that there are two issues involved here: the possibility of supernatural healings; and whether Jesus it is likely that Jesus was a healer. Having myself been healed of an undiagnosed foot problem that was severely limiting my mobility at a Catholic charismatic mass, I personally have no doubt that supernatural healings -- that is, healings that are unexpected, sudden, and cannot be explained by modern science -- do indeed happen. The Vatican investigates claims of supernatural healings using very stringent criteria that no doubt rejects many valid miracles, and yet some remain. Given that supernatural healings do occur, the question then becomes whether they occurred in Jesus' ministry. If we examine St. Matthew's Gospel (the most Jewish of the Gospels) carefully, we see that Jesus' ministry expressed enormous continuity with the ministries of Jewish holy men; Jesus' ministry typically drew on very traditional elements in Judaism, yet typically drew radically different conclusions from them. One of the aspects of the ministries of many Jewish holy men was healing; and indeed, Jesus ministry followed that pattern by including teaching, healing, and prophecy. That Jesus was an unorthodox teacher is, I think, indisputable. That he was a reliable prophet is, from my point of view, indisputable as well; he foretold the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., for example. The combination of teaching and prophecy suggests that healing was indeed part of Jesus' ministry, and that healings did indeed occur. So I would argue that the healings did indeed occur, even if there is no independent attestation for them.

John Vianney “Supernatural” healings DO NOT occur. Please provide me with one VERIFIED instance of this occurring and I will apologize and tell you that you were right.

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Theo Skeptomai. I admit that the analysis of atheism and agnosticism in this video has given short shrift to agnosticism, and that although I still see agnosticism as sharply differentiated from atheism, at the same time I also like your four populations of recipients; in fact, the category of agnostic theist offers a good deal of explanatory power. I would question, though, the notion that atheism represents a default position. As a former atheist myself (I was a gnostic atheist based on your categorization), I would have found your analysis very compelling. But it assumes an individual capable of rational thought who, based on an analysis of available evidence, is able to draw a conclusion that places him or her in one of four categories. The problem is that we are not free agents in that way; we typically don't start out with a conscious default position of agnosticism, and we also typically don't necessarily draw conclusions based purely on logic. I think that there are three real-world processes that mitigate against this assumption: family tradition, culture, and experience. In terms of family tradition, atheism (in this case, gnostic atheism in your categorization) is commonly passed on from parents to their children. Similarly, belief in God (in the past, gnostic theism based on your categorization, and in our own time, some mixture of gnostic theism and agnostic theism) is also typically passed on from parents to their children. In my own case, I've found that on my journey, I've been drawn back to my family's long tradition of Catholicism and of service to God (something I would never have expected). Most cultures are profoundly theist, and American culture is no exception. American culture is profoundly Protestant and, more recently, profoundly evangelical fundamentalist. As an atheist, I was always annoyed by what I thought was the default Christianity of American culture, which seemed to me to be unquestioned by most. As a Catholic, I find the default Protestantism (and now the default evangelical fundamentalism) of white American culture annoying. Finally, experience often underlies what we would like to think is a rational decision-making process. This is particularly true of Christians and former Christians. As disciples of Christ, we are called on to imitate Christ in our lives,, and the institutional church is similarly called on to imitate Christ. We often fall very short of that, and often our failures cause very real damage to others. As a result, the atheism or the particular kind of theism we embrace is often highly emotional. We commit a logical fallacy (though an understandable one) by drawing conclusions about the existence of God based on the bad behavior of Christians or on the abuses of the church. In my own case, for example, although I could have provided ample philosophical justification for the non-existence of God, my underlying motivation was really my own feeling of rejection and my observations of hypocrisy in the pre-Vatican II Catholic church.

@@sjvkirklandadultfaithforma8221 First, I want to thank you for your reply. It honestly is one of the most heartfelt, honest, thoughtful, rational replies I've ever received. And you explain your view in a respectful and cordial manner. I will respond more after dinner. But I had to express my gratitude in your insight and demeanor. You have gained my respect. Peace.